DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam et al. (US 2022/0311044A1) in view of Herle (US 2020/0083506A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor/assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 1, Bashyam discloses a method of making a solid-state electrolyte (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-9), comprising:
combining a first fluoropolymer dissolved in a first solvent, an ionic liquid, and a lithium salt to form a fluoropolymer-ionic liquid-lithium salt solution (making a dispersion including a lithiated ionomer, e.g., perfluorosulfonic acid resin and ionic liquid [0042], [0052]);
combining a second fluoropolymer dissolved in a second solvent and a lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) to form a fluoropolymer-LLZO solution (making a dispersion including a lithiated ionomer, e.g., perfluorosulfonic acid resin and ceramic particles [0042], [0052], ceramic including LLZO [0049], [0053]);
coating a first side of a porous substrate with the fluoropolymer-ionic liquid-lithium salt solution to form a fluoropolymer-ionic liquid-lithium salt coating (coated onto porous substrate [0048]-[0049]).
However, Bashyam does not disclose coating a second side of the porous substrate with the fluoropolymer-LLZO solution to form a fluoropolymer-LLZO composite.
Herle discloses a ceramic coated separator including a porous substrate having a first and second surface, wherein a first ceramic-containing layer(s) is formed on a first surface and optionally on a second surface, and a second ceramic-containing layer(s) is formed on the first ceramic-containing layer. Herle further discloses the first and second ceramic-containing layers are adapted for preventing electronic shorting (e.g. direct or physical contact of the anode and the cathode) and blocking dendrite growth while being sufficiently conductive to allow ionic flow ([0034]-[0036]).
Bashyam and Herle are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bashyam by applying a first coating on a first surface and a second coating on a second surface of a porous substrate because Herles teaches improved performance and safety.
Regarding claim 9, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bashyam further discloses the fluoropolymer-LLZO solution includes 25 wt % of LLZO (5 to 30 wt % [0037]; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Herle further discloses the lithium salt includes a member selected from a group consisting of: LiPF6; LiBF4; LiBOB (lithium bisoxalato borate); LiTFSI (lithium bis(trifluorosulfonyl)imide); LiFSI (lithium fluorosulfonylimide); LiClO4; LiAsF6; LiSbF6; LiSA; LiTf (lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate); LiCTFSI (lithium cyano(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide); LiTDI (lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-trifluoromethylimidazole); LiPDI (lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl) imidazolide); LiDCTA (lithium 4,5-dicyano-1,2,3-triazolate); and LiB(CN)4, and combinations thereof (list of salts [0034]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 12, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bashyam further discloses the porous substrate includes a coating of ceramic particles (ceramic particles can be disposed as a coating on the porous membrane [0035]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Herle further discloses disposing a first side of another porous substrate on the fluoropolymer-ionic liquid-lithium salt coating; and coating a second side of the another porous substrate with another fluoropolymer-LLZO solution to form another fluoropolymer-LLZO composite (a first ceramic-containing layer(s) is formed on a first surface and optionally on a second surface, and a second ceramic-containing layer(s) is formed on the first ceramic-containing layer [0034]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bashyam further discloses the porous substrate and the other porous substrate are formed of the same material and the fluoropolymer-LLZO composite and the another fluoropolymer-LLZO composite are formed of the same material (making a dispersion including a lithiated ionomer, e.g., perfluorosulfonic acid resin and ionic liquid [0042], [0052]; making a dispersion including a lithiated ionomer, e.g., perfluorosulfonic acid resin and ceramic particles [0042], [0052], ceramic including LLZO [0049], [0053]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bashyam further discloses coating the fluoropolymer-ionic liquid-lithium salt coating with another fluoropolymer-LLZO solution to form another fluoropolymer-LLZO composite ([0053], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bashyam further discloses the fluoropolymer-LLZO composite and the another fluoropolymer-LLZO composite are formed of the same material (making a dispersion including a lithiated ionomer, e.g., perfluorosulfonic acid resin and ceramic particles [0042], [0052], ceramic including LLZO [0049], [0053]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bashyam further discloses a solid-state electrolyte made according to the method of claim 1 (solid-state electrolyte [0044]; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bashyam further discloses solid-state lithium-ion battery comprising a solid-state electrolyte made according to the method of claim 1 (solid-state lithium-ion battery [0045]; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bashyam further discloses a vehicle comprising a solid-state lithium-ion battery including a solid-state electrolyte made according to the method of claim 1 (electric vehicle [0045]; see rejection of claim 1 above).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam et al. (US 2022/0311044A1) in view of Herle (US 2020/0083506A1), as applied to claims 1, 9, 11-16, 18-20 above, and further in view of Singh, Varun Kumar, and Rajendra Kumar Singh. "Development of ion conducting polymer gel electrolyte membranes based on polymer PVdF-HFP, BMIMTFSI ionic liquid and the Li-salt with improved electrical, thermal and structural properties." Journal of Materials Chemistry C 3.28 (2015): 7305-7318.
Regarding claim 2, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Bashyam does not further disclose one of the first fluoropolymer and the second fluoropolymer includes poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene).
Singh discloses polymer gel electrolyte membranes based on polymer PVDF-HFP, lithium salt and ionic liquid exhibit sufficient ionic conductivity while being thermally stable (see Title, Abstract, Conclusion section).
Bashyam and Singh are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bashyam by incorporating PVDF-HFP as the polymer because Singh teaches improved performance when using a combination of the polymer, lithium salt and ionic liquid.
Regarding claim 3, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Singh further discloses the other of the first fluoropolymer and the second fluoropolymer includes poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (Title, Abstract, Conclusion section).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Bashyam does not further disclose one of the first solvent and the second solvent includes acetone.
Singh discloses polymer gel electrolyte membranes based on polymer PVDF-HFP, lithium salt, acetone and ionic liquid exhibit sufficient ionic conductivity while being thermally stable (see Title, Abstract, Experimental and Conclusion sections).
Bashyam and Singh are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bashyam by incorporating PVDF-HFP as the polymer and acetone as the solvent because Singh teaches improved performance when using a combination of the polymer, lithium salt, ionic liquid and acetone.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Singh further discloses the other of the first solvent and the second solvent includes acetone (Experimental section).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Singh further discloses the first fluoropolymer is dissolved in the first solvent at 50° C (50 °C, see Experimental section).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Singh further discloses the poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) includes a polyvinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene weight ratio selected from a group consisting of 90:10, 85:15, 82:18, and combinations thereof (PVDF-HFP has a molecular weight of 400000 g/mol, see Experimental section, Materials.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam et al. (US 2022/0311044A1) in view of Herle (US 2020/0083506A1), as applied to claims 1, 9, 11-16, 18-20 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0222244A1, hereinafter Kim ‘244).
Regarding claim 8, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Bashyam does not further disclose the first fluoropolymer dissolved in the first solvent is combined with the ionic liquid in a ratio of 1:2.
Kim ‘244 discloses a solid electrolyte including ionic liquid, a lithium salt, an inorganic particle, and a polymer, the amount of the ionic liquid is greater than or equal to 33 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer, wherein when the amount of the ionic liquid in the solid electrolyte is too small (e.g., lower than 33 parts by weight), the solid electrolyte may have deteriorated mechanical properties, and thus may not form a self-standing film and may have reduced ionic conductivity and when the amount of the ionic liquid is too large (e.g., greater than about 200 parts by weight), a liquid electrolyte rather than the solid electrolyte, may be formed ([0039]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio of the polymer to the ionic liquid in order to arrive at a desired ionic conductivity while preventing the formation of a liquid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam et al. (US 2022/0311044A1) in view of Herle (US 2020/0083506A1), as applied to claims 1, 9, 11-16, 18-20 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0093971A1, hereinafter Kim ‘971).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bashyam discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Bashyam does not further disclose the ionic liquid includes a member selected from a group consisting of: 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, N-methyl N-propylpiperidium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide. N-methyl N-propylpiperidium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate, and N-methyl N-propylpiperidium hexafluorophosphate, and combinations thereof.
Kim ‘971 discloses a solid electrolyte membrane for secondary battery comprising an ionic liquid including EMI-TFSI(1-Ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis-(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)-imide) which may improve the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte membrane ([0072]-[0074]).
Bashyam and Kim ‘971 are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bashyam by incorporating EMI-TFSI as the ionic liquid because Kim ‘971 teaches improved ionic conductivity.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashyam et al. (US 2022/0311044A1) in view of Herle (US 2020/0083506A1, Singh, Varun Kumar, and Rajendra Kumar Singh. "Development of ion conducting polymer gel electrolyte membranes based on polymer PVdF-HFP, BMIMTFSI ionic liquid and the Li-salt with improved electrical, thermal and structural properties." Journal of Materials Chemistry C 3.28 (2015): 7305-7318., and Kim et al. (US 2017/0222244A1, hereinafter Kim ‘244).
Regarding claim 17, Bashyam discloses a method of making a solid-state electrolyte (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-9), comprising:
combining a first fluoropolymer dissolved in a first solvent, an ionic liquid, and a lithium salt to form a fluoropolymer-ionic liquid-lithium salt solution (making a dispersion including a lithiated ionomer, e.g., perfluorosulfonic acid resin and ionic liquid [0042], [0052]);
combining a second fluoropolymer dissolved in a second solvent and a lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) to form a fluoropolymer-LLZO solution including 25 wt % of LLZO (making a dispersion including a lithiated ionomer, e.g., perfluorosulfonic acid resin and ceramic particles [0042], [0052], ceramic including LLZO [0049], [0053]; 5 to 30 wt % [0037]; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.),
coating a first side of a porous substrate with the fluoropolymer-ionic liquid-lithium salt solution to form a fluoropolymer-ionic liquid-lithium salt coating (coated onto porous substrate [0048]-[0049]).
However, Bashyam does not disclose coating a second side of the porous substrate with the fluoropolymer-LLZO solution to form a fluoropolymer-LLZO composite.
Herle discloses a ceramic coated separator including a porous substrate having a first and second surface, wherein a first ceramic-containing layer(s) is formed on a first surface and optionally on a second surface, and a second ceramic-containing layer(s) is formed on the first ceramic-containing layer. Herle further discloses the first and second ceramic-containing layers are adapted for preventing electronic shorting (e.g. direct or physical contact of the anode and the cathode) and blocking dendrite growth while being sufficiently conductive to allow ionic flow ([0034]-[0036]).
Bashyam and Herle are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bashyam by applying a first coating on a first surface and a second coating on a second surface of a porous substrate because Herles teaches improved performance and safety.
Further regarding claim 17, Bashyam does not disclose a first solvent including acetone; wherein one of the first fluoropolymer and the second fluoropolymer includes poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) and the other of the first fluoropolymer and the second fluoropolymer includes poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene)
Singh discloses polymer gel electrolyte membranes based on polymer PVDF-HFP, lithium salt, acetone and ionic liquid exhibit sufficient ionic conductivity while being thermally stable (see Title, Abstract, Experimental and Conclusion sections).
Bashyam and Singh are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bashyam by incorporating PVDF-HFP as the polymer and acetone as the solvent because Singh teaches improved performance when using a combination of the polymer, lithium salt, ionic liquid and acetone.
Further regarding claim 17, Bashyam does not further disclose the first fluoropolymer dissolved in the first solvent is combined with the ionic liquid in a ratio of 1:2.
Kim ‘244 discloses a solid electrolyte including ionic liquid, a lithium salt, an inorganic particle, and a polymer, the amount of the ionic liquid is greater than or equal to 33 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer, wherein when the amount of the ionic liquid in the solid electrolyte is too small (e.g., lower than 33 parts by weight), the solid electrolyte may have deteriorated mechanical properties, and thus may not form a self-standing film and may have reduced ionic conductivity and when the amount of the ionic liquid is too large (e.g., greater than about 200 parts by weight), a liquid electrolyte rather than the solid electrolyte, may be formed ([0039]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio of the polymer to the ionic liquid in order to arrive at a desired ionic conductivity while preventing the formation of a liquid electrolyte (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights